Just a blogger. Since 2003.

Menu

Feminism

Wrong on many things, but right on on the culture wars & modern-day feminist hacks.

Though there are many areas of disagreement, probably the area where I find the strongest agreement with self-proclaimed “dissident feminist” Camille Paglia is in her consistent dissection of modern-day “feminism”, our politically correct culture and how it has deliberately and effectively neutered a generation or more of young men. Wall Street Journal’s Weekend Interview features Paglia, and – as usual – she had a lot to say on the issue (via Memeorandum):

Ms. Paglia argues that the softening of modern American society begins as early as kindergarten. “Primary-school education is a crock, basically. It’s oppressive to anyone with physical energy, especially guys,” she says, pointing to the most obvious example: the way many schools have cut recess. “They’re making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters.”

She is not the first to make this argument, as Ms. Paglia readily notes. Fellow feminist Christina Hoff Sommers has written about the “war against boys” for more than a decade. The notion was once met with derision, but now data back it up: Almost one in five high-school-age boys has been diagnosed with ADHD, boys get worse grades than girls and are less likely to go to college.

Ms. Paglia observes this phenomenon up close with her 11-year-old son, Lucien, whom she is raising with her ex-partner, Alison Maddex, an artist and public-school teacher who lives 2 miles away. She sees the tacit elevation of “female values”—such as sensitivity, socialization and cooperation—as the main aim of teachers, rather than fostering creative energy and teaching hard geographical and historical facts.

By her lights, things only get worse in higher education. “This PC gender politics thing—the way gender is being taught in the universities—in a very anti-male way, it’s all about neutralization of maleness.” The result: Upper-middle-class men who are “intimidated” and “can’t say anything. . . . They understand the agenda.” In other words: They avoid goring certain sacred cows by “never telling the truth to women” about sex, and by keeping “raunchy” thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops.

Politically correct, inadequate education, along with the decline of America’s brawny industrial base, leaves many men with “no models of manhood,” she says. “Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There’s nothing left. There’s no room for anything manly right now.” The only place you can hear what men really feel these days, she claims, is on sports radio. No surprise, she is an avid listener. The energy and enthusiasm “inspires me as a writer,” she says, adding: “If we had to go to war,” the callers “are the men that would save the nation.”

For liberals reading this blog thinking that “context” might make this sound better, um, no – it doesn’t. Click here and scroll for what I wish I could describe as “comedy gold”, but what instead in reality are the deluded, warped comments of an extraordinarily sad, bitter, unhinged, bigoted woman who is convinced men are the devil and that conservative women who don’t fall in line with her extremist belief system are nothing more than slaves to ‘religionism’ and patriarchy (sound familiar?). Twitchy.com documented reactions to her comments and some of her exchanges with shocked readers to who she is completely and predictably unapologetic.

There’s nothing that can be said about her at this point that hasn’t already been said over and over again – including by yours truly:

The above, BTW, isn’t an official government account but instead run by people who want to make sure women in particular are “thankful” for the passage of Obamacare because of its mandate that insurers offer “free” birth control coverage. Emily Miller the Washington Times reports:

A second ad showing a young woman holding a pack of birth control pills gives the appearance she is possible drunk and at a party. “Ali” is wearing a black, one shoulder, silky dress, bare arms and legs and high heels. She is leaning against a cutout of actor Ryan Gossling — a takeoff of the popular meme “Hey Girl.”

The copy reads from the male actor’s point of view: “You’re excited about easy access to birth control and I’m excited about getting to know you.”

[…]

The latest ads are part of a marketing campaign from Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and ProgressNow Colorado Education that are a takeoff of the “Got Milk?” ads that instead say “Got Obamacare?” These groups first went after young men with ads showing them doing keg stands and binge drinking.

Liberal groups paying for marketing campaigns to target young people to buy health insurance is to be expected. The whole Obamacare scheme will only work if young, healthy people get into the system so that the government can hand out subsidies to the uninsured.

But treating young women like cheap sluts who don’t care about their health or well being other than getting cheap birth control pills to have sex with strange men is offensive. These ads should be taken down.

You can see the other “Thanks Obamacare” ads here. Make sure not to miss the one about “Brosurance” (scroll). America is raising a generation of narcissistic dum dums, I’m afraid to say.

“Many young women … are finding that casual sex does not bring the physical pleasure that men more often experience,” the Times reports. “New research suggests why: Women are less likely to have orgasms during uncommitted sexual encounters than in serious relationships. At the same time, researchers say that young women are becoming equal partners in the hookup culture, often just as willing as young men to venture into sexual relationships without emotional ties.”

The article goes on to cite another study which looked at 24,000 students at 21 colleges over five years that found “about 40 percent of women had an orgasm during their last hookup involving intercourse, while 80 percent of men did.”

The Times’ report interviewed several people who had all sorts of ideas as to what’s going wrong in the bedroom, such as that young men don’t care about pleasing a women they see casually, and the twosome doesn’t know each other well enough to know how to get each other off. Predictably, it goes on to quote sources who say sex without orgasms is fine for women seeking to scratch that carnal itch – that “mediocre sex” is the price women pay for freedom.

But the truth is women engaged in casual sex don’t reach orgasm because – on some level – they know they’re selling themselves short. They’re giving away their ace in the hole, pardon the pun, to some guy who barely knows their name and is likely too drunk to remember it in the morning. They’re offering themselves to a man who has committed nothing to them, cares nothing for them.

This is “sexual freedom”? No thank you. Give me emotional commitment over a “hook-up” any day. It’s a lot more fulfilling and rewarding – and not merely in terms of just the physical aspects. Young women constantly sell themselves – and their ability to have a nurturing, loving, sustaining, more equal relationship – short in this regard (frankly, men do, too). And it hurts their ability to trust in the long run. But it’s what rules in pop culture, it’s the “in” thing to do. It’s “rebellious”, it’s a “rite of passage” – and for women, it’s the ultimate sign of “non-conformity” against the values their parents tried to instill in them when they were growing up.

Isn’t it far more grown up and, dare I say “rebellious”, to resist the temptation to be like everyone else and to NOT do what everyone else is doing? Just askin.’

Someone named “Fiftycal” doesn’t care much for the truth when it comes to the inhumane procedure of abortion and TX Senator Wendy Davis’ record on it:

Ever heard of the Constitution? Supreme Court? Don’t like “abortion”? then get a Constitutional Amendment to “ban” it. Until then, STFU. Why is it that some snake handling religious superstitionists think it is THEIR BUSINESS what someone else does with their body? I am a CONSERVATIVE that wants LESS GOVERNMENT, not a “christian” that wants less government EXCEPT where I want MORE GOVERNMENT. So tell me snake handlers, which form of enforcement would you have if “abortion” was illegal? Soviet style or Chinese style? Would you make miscarriages murder? The one bit of truth the leftists have is the “war on women” meme. And Abbott will waste millions on the unconstitutional “anti-abortion” mess passed by the bible thumpers in the last session.

“Tolerant” far leftists and their fondness for a “new tone” type of dialogue strike again. Alert President Unicorn and the Civility Police!

These shoes were made for runnin’ … away from your pro-abortion record? Photo via Dallas News.

As has been previously reported, feminista darling-turned candidate for Texas governor Wendy Davis is running away as fast as she can from her abortion record. Her “introduction” campaign video to the state of Texas last month didn’t mention the word abortion nor talk about the issue once, in spite of the fact that her rise to national prominence is based SOLELY on that one issue.

Yesterday in Brownsville, TX, the TX state senator took another giant leap away from her staunch abortion advocacy record by actually claiming that she – the one who tried to filibuster a bill that would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks – was pro-life. Via the Valley Morning Star(bolded emphasis added by me):

But while in Brownville Tuesday, Davis revealed her campaign for governor isn’t based on her abortion filibuster and brightly colored shoes.

Her campaign stop at the University of Texas at Brownsville centered on a lesser-known filibuster of hers: one she conducted in 2011 in opposition to a budget that tried to cut $4 billion from public education.

Education, she said, was crucial to the fulfillment of what she called Texas’ promise.

“If you work hard you can become anything you desire to be in a place like Texas,” she said. “That promise was one that my state delivered to me when I was young, but the promise today really has been broken.”

Indeed, it has, ironically enough by pro-choice politicos like Wendy Davis who are perfectly ok with unborn children having the very opportunities she and her fellow Texans were given from the moment they were born away from them: The chance to be born and to have the opportunity to “become anything you desire to be.”

Continuing on:

Davis said her approach to job growth differs from the Republican plan just as her approach toward the goal of having zero abortions in Texas differs, characterizing herself as a reluctant participant in the abortion debate.

“The battle over reproductive rights and women’s health care that was waged on June 25 was not a battle I chose,” she said. “When I believe women’s health is in danger, I’m going to stand and fight to protect that.”

[…]

“This isn’t about protecting abortion. It’s about protecting women,” she said. “It’s about trusting women to make good decisions for themselves and empowering them with the tools to do that.”

[…]

“(I’m) a woman who wants desperately for others who are coming up in poverty to receive the same kind of partnership from the state that I once received so that they too can become a part of the success of Texas,” she said.

Davis suggested that her views on abortion access do not mean she does not care about life.

“I am pro-life,” she said, borrowing from the label anti-abortion activists assign themselves. “I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future. I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.”

Only after they are born, though – not before. And that’s the problem, Ms. Davis. The unborn are people worth fighting for, too.

Republican State Senator Bob Deuell, who set two pairs of infant shoes on the counter, speaks during a July TX senate hearing on a proposed abortion bill in Austin. Photo via Mike Stone / Reuters

Some news reports erroneously reported early on today that HB 2 – the hotly debated Texas abortion law pro-abortion State Senator Wendy Davis (now a gubernatorial candidate) attempted to filibuster back in June – had been “blocked” in its entirety by a federal judge, leading to a lot of misinformation being spread initially about the ruling … including by yours truly on social media. While it’s true that parts of the bill HAVE been blocked for the time being, the post-20 week ban on abortions, which is set to take effect tomorrow, has not been blocked as of yet and wasn’t challenged in this case. Via the Austin American-Statesman (hat tip):

A federal judge on Monday barred Texas from enforcing a key provision of an abortion law that was to take effect Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel’s opinion found that a provision requiring abortion doctors to gain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital “does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman’s health.”

Yeakel also barred Texas from enforcing a provision regulating the dispensing of abortion-inducing drugs for “women for whom surgical abortion is, in the sound medical opinion of their treating physician, a significant health risk.” However, he allowed other parts of the provision, including a requirement for one extra office visit, to stand.

[…]

Abortion providers also complained that the law did not give them enough time. Hospitals have 170 days to rule on a request for privileges, but the law was to go into effect 90 days after the special legislative session ended in July.

In his ruling, Yeakel said the rule “places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her.”

Gov. Rick Perry said state officials will continue efforts to enact HB 2.

[…]

The case next heads to federal appeals court, where abortion-related Texas laws have recently prevailed:

[…]

One provision of the law, a ban on abortions at 20 weeks post-fertilization, was not challenged and will take effect Tuesday. The limit, with exceptions if the mother’s life is in danger and in cases of severe fetal abnormality, is four weeks earlier than current law.

Another HB 2 provision, requiring abortion clinics meet the same requirements as day surgery centers, does not take effect until Sept. 1, 2014 and is expected to be challenged in court in the future.

In one awful high-profile case after another—the U.S. Naval Academy; Steubenville, Ohio; now the allegations in Maryville, Mo.—we read about a young woman, sometimes only a girl, who goes to a party and ends up being raped. As soon as the school year begins, so do reports of female students sexually assaulted by their male classmates. A common denominator in these cases is alcohol, often copious amounts, enough to render the young woman incapacitated. But a misplaced fear of blaming the victim has made it somehow unacceptable to warn inexperienced young women that when they get wasted, they are putting themselves in potential peril.

A 2009 study of campus sexual assault found that by the time they are seniors, almost 20 percent of college women will become victims, overwhelmingly of a fellow classmate. Very few will ever report it to authorities. The same study states that more than 80 percent of campus sexual assaults involve alcohol. Frequently both the man and the woman have been drinking. The men tend to use the drinking to justify their behavior, as this survey of research on alcohol-related campus sexual assault by Antonia Abbey, professor of psychology at Wayne State University, illustrates, while for many of the women, having been drunk becomes a source of guilt and shame. Sometimes the woman is the only one drunk and runs into a particular type of shrewd—and sober—sexual predator who lurks where women drink like a lion at a watering hole. For these kinds of men, the rise of female binge drinking has made campuses a prey-rich environment. I’ve spoken to three recent college graduates who were the victims of such assailants, and their stories are chilling.

Let’s be totally clear: Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice. But we are failing to let women know that when they render themselves defenseless, terrible things can be done to them. Young women are getting a distorted message that their right to match men drink for drink is a feminist issue. The real feminist message should be that when you lose the ability to be responsible for yourself, you drastically increase the chances that you will attract the kinds of people who, shall we say, don’t have your best interest at heart. That’s not blaming the victim; that’s trying to prevent more victims.

Experts I spoke to who wanted young women to get this information said they were aware of how loaded it has become to give warnings to women about their behavior. “I’m always feeling defensive that my main advice is: ‘Protect yourself. Don’t make yourself vulnerable to the point of losing your cognitive faculties,’ ” says Anne Coughlin, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, who has written on rape and teaches feminist jurisprudence. She adds that by not telling them the truth—that they are responsible for keeping their wits about them—she worries that we are “infantilizing women.”

Ms. Coughlin is right – we ARE infantilizing young women by withholding critical information from women, giving into the popular myth that it’s wrong to discuss rape prevention methods that involve women taking more care when it comes to their surroundings and state of mind. It’s my personal belief that the deliberate shielding of women from this obvious fact has caused more of them to become victims of rape. It’s so critically important that the public dialogue on women’s safety gets this right and starts being more upfront and candid about measures women young and old to take to cut down on the likelihood that they will become victims of crime.

I get in trouble sometimes for making this argument because some people think I’m “blaming the victim.” Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a difference in saying something might have been preventable versus blaming the victim for what happened. No victim of rape deserves to be raped. Period. Full stop. My point is that I want there to be less victims of crime, not more, and the best way to reduce your chances of being a victim is to start by being responsible for where you are and the condition you are in and who you are with. Why is this so controversial to say? Parents tell their kids not to play too close to the street. Husbands remind their wives not to drive or walk in a bad neighborhood at all, especially at night and especially not alone. Mothers strongly urge a buddy system for their teenage daughters when a group of them get together for a beach trip. Why not encourage women, especially young high school and college women, to avoid getting drunk? Doesn’t mean you can’t drink, but it also means to not have so much to drink you forget who you are, where you are, and who you are with —- and what you’re doing. This applies to guys as well, of course, but fortunately for them they don’t have to deal with being date raped very often. Ladies – don’t put it all on the guy to be responsible. You need to be responsible, too, just in case.

These are common sense suggestions that aid in keeping people safe. They aren’t fool-proof, of course – you could take every single precaution possible and still find yourself in a situation you’d rather not be in – but you lessen your chances of being a victim of crime just by following simple advice on how to protect yourself.

Yes, we should be able to go where we want to go, and do what we want to do without fear that we’re going to be attacked – and that goes for men, too. We have the “right” of free will. But having “the right” to do something in our society doesn’t always = being ok to exercise it. With freedom comes responsibility, and we must be responsible for ourselves, and in our decision making, because our society is not perfect. And that is the reality of it – we don’t live in a perfect world, and there are people out there who will always be up to no good, so we must guard ourselves against such people. Amazingly enough, I’ve been able to do this for years and still – gasp – have managed to have fun!

It wasn’t always like this, however- when I was younger I DID find myself in situations that could have gotten me in a lot of trouble. I was VERY fortunate that ultimately they did not. I’ve done a lot of maturing since then, and my hope is that anyone reading this who has the mentality that they are invincible, please do a little soul-searching …. and growing up, too. Most men don’t rape (newsflash for “feminists”!) but there are bad people in the world, and taking precautionary measures to try and prevent yourself from being hurt could save you a lot of pain and grief and agony.

These shoes were made for runnin’ … away from your pro-abortion record? Photo via Dallas News.

National Review’s Jim Geraghty noticed this from a fundraiser email sent out by Davis supporter and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro:

Friend –

I just had a great meeting with my friend Wendy Davis here in San Antonio.

We talked about job creation and economic empowerment for all Texans — and I left reminded of her extraordinary determination to make Texas even better than it already is.

If you caught Wendy’s announcement speech last week, you saw why she’s been able to inspire so many people, both here in Texas and across the country. I’m going to do everything I can between now and next November to make sure she gets to the Governor’s Mansion.

She overcame a background of poverty to put herself through Harvard law school.

She once stood for hours to filibuster a bill that would have resulted in billions of dollars in cuts to public education for our kids.

“Stood for hours” in a filibuster over …. cuts in education funding? Geraghty rightly calls foul:

Castro (or the staffer who wrote this) is just flat-out lying. Davis made a one-hour-and-fifteen minute filibuster in 2011 about public education spending. The only time she stood for “hours” was in her 2013 filibuster to stop a bill that would ”ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require abortion clinics to meet the same standards that hospital-style surgical centers do, and mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.”

The Castro e-mail is attempting to blur the lines between the two filibusters, perhaps hoping they can fool people that the more recent and high-profile filibuster wasn’t really about late-term abortions but about education.

What’s missing in the four-minute-30-second spot? Any mention of Davis’ party affiliation, to wit, her affiliation with the Democratic Party.

The two-term state senator from Fort Worth is waging a decidedly uphill fight in the race to succeed Republican Gov. Rick Perry. It’s been more than two decades since Texans elected a Democratic governor, and Republicans are riding a winning streak of more than 100 victories in statewide contests.

Although Davis vaulted to overnight celebrity on the strength of her June filibuster against antiabortion legislation, she can’t possibly win running as an abortion rights crusader or champion of the political left. That explains why she made no mention of her famous filibuster in last week’s announcement speech, focusing instead on education and accountability in Austin, the state capital.

It also explains the omission of the D-word — no, not Dallas — in her new campaign video.

But Texans needn’t worry. By the time the campaign is over, Republicans will have worked so hard tying her to the national Democratic Party that voters might think it’s Davis, not Joe Biden, who is President Obama’s understudy in the White House.

As they should. After all, hasn’t Ms. Davis’ name been mentioned as a possible VP candidate to Hillary Clinton, should the former Secretary of State decide to run for the Oval Office again? Yep.

This is all very interesting. Who would have ever thought that the “courageous” woman who “stood for hours in pink (actually rouge red) tennis shoes’ for the right to mutilate your unborn baby after 20 weeks would, in so many words, be running away from her now ‘legendary’ record on the topic – even going so far as to pose in a campaign photo with children who were fortunate enough to be born? Let’s hope she held on to those sneakers …